Just put in my Obama -14 and over 45 uses of the word "forward" parlay for tonights game.

While Romney can debate, he's not as good as Obama, and much more plasticky. With how poorly his campaign has been run, there's no reason at all to think he can rise up and actually win this thing convincingly tonight ... which he clearly needs to do.

Obama is much too smart to take any of the bait Romney will throw out there. All Obama needs to do is not get baited, not make any bad Biden-esque gaffe's, and he wins this election handily. Four corners offense. And its a strategy that will likely frustrate Romney, lambasted by his party for being too passive, into doing and saying things that will make him even more "unlikable" than he already is.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

I'd love to check out the debate, but I have this very important movie to watch. Not sure which one yet, but it is vastly important whatever it is and the fact that I own it on DVD does not mean I can watch it later.

It's really too bad. I was really looking forward to 2 douchebags in a pissing contest about topics that neither one of them will do anything about anyway.

This election is O-V-E-R. Trailing by 7 (Dispatch) in Ohio and a mile in PA. The Republicans NEVER hitched their 2012 hopes to a name until this year. I told you guys that would kill them. This campaign started about 20 minutes after Obama crushed McCain. The GOP donors are already pulling money from Mittens to focus on the House and Senate races. This is just a introduction to their 2016 show pony Paul Ryan now. And he's getting crushed and flustered in interviews with Chris effin Wallace on Fox News for christ's sake.

FUDU wrote:He's done surprisingly well IMO, Obama is strangely nervous or just stuttering/stumbling on some answers.

It's solid debate so far IMO.

As I suggested on the other thread. He can be a little Bush-like off prompter. Maybe it's the stress of the job Bush was nothing like that when debating Ma Richards. There are youtube clips wondering what the hell happened to articulate Bush.

I very accurately predicted the bounce Obama ended up getting out of the conventions. I feel like this Romney white-washing tonight, before a massive TV audience, will have legitimate impact on the race. Not a game changer, but a VERY good night for Romney that will shrink the gaps in the polls and put Romney right back in this thing.

Obama was doing nothing but counter punching. He stuttered all night, refused to make eye contact with Romney, and was constantly on the defensive. Not one mention of Bain, the 47%, or Romney's tax returns ... which speaks to how much Obama was on the ropes.

Romney was confident, on point, debunked many of the Obama talking point themes, and RAN OVER Jim Lehrer to always get the last word. If it was a football game, Romney would have won by 3-4 touchdowns.

It's not as if this makes Romney the favorite. But I'd be shocked if it doesn't change anything.

"It's like dating a woman who hates you so much she will never break up with you, even if you burn down the house every single autumn." ~ Chuck Klosterman on Browns fans relationship with the Browns

One thing was he seemed to have a 3-5 point answer for everything, and I say that as a compliment that he just seemed well prepared and more of a policy-wonk in the Clinton mode. Again it's just a debate he could be light as hell on all of these areas, but it comes across as having a firm grasp of the issues.

The blogosphere will parse it all out and show how light it was, but my point is that you only get your 2-5 minutes (ha ha) per topic and he seemed to control the debate in that area.

FUDU wrote:He's done surprisingly well IMO, Obama is strangely nervous or just stuttering/stumbling on some answers.

It's solid debate so far IMO.

As I suggested on the other thread. He can be a little Bush-like off prompter. Maybe it's the stress of the job Bush was nothing like that when debating Ma Richards. There are youtube clips wondering what the hell happened to articulate Bush.

Doing well in this debate is one thing, but what Romney just did was unveil a completely new platform.... void of any details.

If he comes out this week with a real platform that backs up all of the fallacies and bullshit he lived on tonight maybe he can climb back in this thing. If not he sets himself up for death by blow-out in the 2nd round.

Tonight was Romney's big move and the guy pulled back from tapping out, now he has to finish the reversal otherwise he just delayed reality.

BTW: historically (in the polling era) nothing has ever mattered at the end of an election that came from the first debate, or the second, or the third for that matter when it comes to the actual winner.

Agree on the Cleveland Clinic comment by Commodore. Sure, a nice way for the candidates to give a shout out to a swing state, but who cares-

Obama was playing prevent D and gave up yardage in chunks. Also, I agree with those who say Pres Obama may not be used to direct challenges, or tough questions. He doesn't hold press conferences, and the press lobs him softballs.

eye, I hear you on the big picture although I believe some recent polling has over-sampled Dems. What nobody can wish away is that the Rep base is back, fully energized, because of last night. Regardless of what the Rep establishment thinks, a socially conservative message- handled competently- is the winning formula. Not watering it down, worrying about being a centrist, in fear of being branded a wing nut and losing the undecideds.

Huge win in laying out the Tea Party message in a way that Dems couldn't dismiss out of hand.

e0y2e3 wrote:BTW: I've seen debate teams featuring as low as sixth graders that managed to make more poignant arguments/points then were made in tonight's clusterfuck.

Disagree. Romney made numerous "poignant arguments/points" that actually left him open to counter-arguments--which Obama failed to take advantage of. What clearly happened was that Romney managed to delineate his opposing political philosophy quite clearly. If the debate was a clusterfuck, it was a one-sided clusterfuck.

e0y2e3 wrote:If he comes out this week with a real platform that backs up all of the fallacies and bullshit he lived on tonight maybe he can climb back in this thing. If not he sets himself up for death by blow-out in the 2nd round.

Obama will come out swinging in two weeks and will be slinging the bullshit just as hard if not harder than Romney ever can. What Romney did in the first round is assure himself of stronger financial and vocal backing in the weeks to come from his energized Republican base. Had Romney not showed up, he'd be dead today. But now, there will be no death by blow-out. Game on.

I wish sporting events were like debates. When the Browns got thumped 35-6 we could see it spun over the course of the next days into an actual Cleveland win.

I mean, y'all watched the same exact event/debate/telecast, correct? One wasn't on RepubTV and the other on DemTV and enhanced to change the actual coverage? It was the exact same thing yet there are declarations of a huge win and others "LOL-ing" at the notion.

I didn't watch. Not bothering. Not even sure I'll vote. I can't make up my mind between which man and party are Christ-like and which are the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet.

This is why it's desperately frustrating in this country today. Not only politics but talking about them.

Scream louder!!! Make shit up!!! I'm sure it will change the minds of the folks on the other side of the aisle.

jerry, I said point blank that Romney won, but that debate was ran and executed on a sixth grade level and it is inarguable.

The first 40 minutes was them both arguing about he said/she said bullshit. The next hour was Romney reinventing his entire campaign on the fly and the moderator was ran over like a semi.

It was disgusting and terrible and frankly, bad for this country.

Romney performed well given all of the shit that went down, but that doesn't excuse how disgusting of an actual debate execution that actually was.

I'm glad he had nice counter arguments to Obama's policies and was able to reinvent himself as he did, but demanding the last word and refusing an state a single detail about all of these big plans you are just now announcing is the very definition of a waste fo time and effort for everyone watching.

googleeph2 wrote:eye, I hear you on the big picture although I believe some recent polling has over-sampled Dems. What nobody can wish away is that the Rep base is back, fully energized, because of last night. Regardless of what the Rep establishment thinks, a socially conservative message- handled competently- is the winning formula. Not watering it down, worrying about being a centrist, in fear of being branded a wing nut and losing the undecideds.

ROFL, it's like numbers don't exist.

You guys do understand the Romney was on the way TO A HISTORICAL BEAT DOWN and that NO CANDIDATE IN THE HISTORY OF ANYTHING HAS COME BACK FROM THAT.

He won a debate last night, it changes zero in terms of the eventual election outcome. Take off your fucking partisan bullshit for a second and LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.

Obama did dis a lack of details from Romney. I think Romney's answer to that is he's dealing in concepts, and he has a track record of working with the other party in accomplishing goals. Up to the viewer to determine if that is acceptable. I have heard some say it isn't, for them. He used this to draw the contrast to the pres hammering through national health covg without a debate- he'll work that groove for the next 4 weeks.

The next pres debate is a town hall meeting that will involve domestic but also foreign policy. I think this was Obama's best chance to drive that wedge between rich/poor the way they've been doing. He let a big opportunity go by. Didn't even mention the 47% thing.

e0y2e3 wrote: Take off your fucking partisan bullshit for a second and LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.

I also love when partisan people condemn 'partisan bullshit'.

It's rich in irony and comedy.

No, numbers are not partisan.

Frankly I'm in the "I kind of wished a meteor would fly in and kill them both when they spent twenty minutes arguing about what the other said and explaining math" camp.

And when someone can tell me where I wrote Romney didn't win that clusterfuck I'll give them a cool hundy.

PS: A candidate cannot just roll into a debate and introduce new concepts he has never explained before and then use "it's complicated" as an out 100x as Romney did. That would have gotten him kicked out of varsity HS debates. Same as Obama can't just stand there and have no ability to go off-script and look a fool like he did.

googleeph2 wrote:Mitt Romney stood there and explained to our president how a job is created, for crying out loud.

When I'm president we will make ALL THE JOBS by cutting ALL THE TAXES and pay for it with the money we save when I fire Big Bird and Oscar The Grouch! And I hope your kids don't like Dinosaur Train because that shit is done, son. Cuz I ain't borrowing money from China to pay for no fucking Dinosaur documentary. Apologies to Scott the Paleontologist. - Mitt

If you like, google Andrew Sullivan for a lib blog account of the debate.

Bottom line for me: Libs now are way further to the left than back when I was born. JFK's don't overtax/people need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when possible/ strong defense as the deterrence for war? I'm on board. But today, libs frame that as extreme right. I wonder when they will stop moving to the left- where are the limits?

The left promotes some good concepts, but right now, we need to guard against being in so much debt that we eventually end up printing so much money that inflation starts ramping up. Greece could happen anywhere- having so much debt that drastic austerity measures must be enforced in order to recover. People who were promised stuff, and can't get it- and people who had govt jobs and have lost them- are furious. And if we (our kids) get in that situation, there won't be a Germany there, ready to bail us out.

Yes, the Republicans are almost as far left as them (just using different money dumping streams).

Yes, they both blow and nothing matters in terms of who wins this election. Frankly, it wouldn't even be interesting if not for the fact that the Republicans somehow managed to fuck up the campaign so bad that going into the debates against a president with meh approval ratings and during a time of economic death they were set up for a historic beatemdown in the election. That fact is still amazing to me.

Win won for the giper certainly went down last night, now it's 36-13. w00t w00t!!

If you like, google Andrew Sullivan for a lib blog account of the debate.

Bottom line for me: Libs now are way further to the left than back when I was born. JFK's don't overtax/people need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when possible/ strong defense as the deterrence for war? I'm on board. But today, libs frame that as extreme right. I wonder when they will stop moving to the left- where are the limits?

The left promotes some good concepts, but right now, we need to guard against being in so much debt that we eventually end up printing so much money that inflation starts ramping up. Greece could happen anywhere- having so much debt that drastic austerity measures must be enforced in order to recover. People who were promised stuff, and can't get it- and people who had govt jobs and have lost them- are furious. And if we (our kids) get in that situation, there won't be a Germany there, ready to bail us out.

e0y2e3 wrote: Take off your fucking partisan bullshit for a second and LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.

I also love when partisan people condemn 'partisan bullshit'.

It's rich in irony and comedy.

No, numbers are not partisan.

The Browns were the 2nd best passing defense in the NFL last year.

Numbers may be pure. How they're derived and what they mean are clearly manipulated. Regardless of what side you sit on. There's simply going to be a huge degree of bias with any of these polling numbers, regardless of how "unbiased" they claim to be.

Frankly I'm in the "I kind of wished a meteor would fly in and kill them both when they spent twenty minutes arguing about what the other said and explaining math" camp.

Amen.

And when someone can tell me where I wrote Romney didn't win that clusterfuck I'll give them a cool hundy.

PS: A candidate cannot just roll into a debate and introduce new concepts he has never explained before and then use "it's complicated" as an out 100x as Romney did.

Yes they can. You're far too bright to float that utter nonsense when you know full well the kind of people who make up the voting populous. Shiny objects and all...

That would have gotten him kicked out of varsity HS debates. Same as Obama can't just stand there and have no ability to go off-script and look a fool like he did.

Yes he can. 45% of the voters would punch the hole next to his name if he drooled uncontrollably for an hour wearing a leisure suit and playing paddle-ball.